Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2007 12:03 a.m. EST

Sen. Barack Obama Apologizes for Saying U.S. Troops 'Wasted'

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is apologizing for saying the lives of the more than 3,000 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war were "wasted."

During his first campaign trip this weekend, the Illinois senator told a crowd in Iowa: "We now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

He immediately apologized on Sunday, saying the remark was "a slip of the tongue." [You mean botched joke, right?]

During an appearance Monday in Nashua, N.H., he apologized again, telling reporters he meant to criticize the civilian leadership of the war, not those serving in the military.

"Even as I said it, I realized I had misspoken," Obama said. "It is not at all what I intended to say, and I would absolutely apologize if any (military families) felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they'd shown." [Gee, sounds like Kerry's 'apology.' How about, "I've decided that I'm not fit to be commander in chief, and I hereby withdraw my candidacy for the U.S. Presidency."]]

Obama made his second visit to New Hampshire on Monday, following his speech Saturday announcing his candidacy in Illinois on Saturday and a visit to first-caucus state Iowa.

It is obvious to me what he meant by the statement. He wasn't speaking negatively in any way about the troops, just our leadership that has them in harms way.

It is obvious to me what he meant by the statement. He wasn't speaking negatively in any way about the troops, just our leadership that has them in harms way.

You'd hope it would be obvious at least, but you know some people... they'll run with anything.

If it was SOOOOOOO obvious, then why did he feel the need to apologize for it? He either meant what he said, or he didn't.

I am sure he is well aware that everything he says has to be absolutely precise otherwise his oppenents will take anything possible out of context to smear him. Politics, you know.

I am sure he is well aware that everything he says has to be absolutely precise otherwise his oppenents will take anything possible out of context to smear him. Politics, you know.

It's going to be difficult for an anti-war, anti-troop candidate to keep from putting his foot in his mouth. I predict he will have to apologize again before Nov. 2008.

It's going to be difficult for an anti-war, anti-troop candidate to keep from putting his foot in his mouth. I predict he will have to apologize again before Nov. 2008.

I wouldn't bet against your prediction.

That wasn't a mistake. He meant it.

He thinks the efforts in the Middle East are a waste of effort. He thinks the mission is not worth achieving.

It offends me less that he would say that, then the fact he'll say it, mean it, and then back away from the statement in order to trick the public.

If it was SOOOOOOO obvious, then why did he feel the need to apologize for it? He either meant what he said, or he didn't.

For those who took the comment the wrong way.

How is it troop bashing when he called them "bravest young Americans"?
The jab is intended for our leadership, not the troops.

That wasn't a mistake. He meant it.

He thinks the efforts in the Middle East are a waste of effort. He thinks the mission is not worth achieving.

It offends me less that he would say that, then the fact he'll say it, mean it, and then back away from the statement in order to trick the public.

You are absolutely correct about it not being a mistake, he did mean what he said. Again; he is apologizing to those who mistakenly took the comments as a swipe at the troops. I really don't think he is trying to trick anyone with the apology.

The problem is, if Obama really thinks the 3,000 lives are wasted, how is that supposed to buck up the morale of the troops? Can you explain that? If you're a troop out there in harm's way, believing in what you're doing, serving your country, and some candidate for president implies your mission is a waste of time, how is that supposed to motivate you? And what message does that send to our enemies? Does that not give them aid and comfort?

Of course.

The problem is, if Obama really thinks the 3,000 lives are wasted, how is that supposed to buck up the morale of the troops? Can you explain that? If you're a troop out there in harm's way, believing in what you're doing, serving your country, and some candidate for president implies your mission is a waste of time, how is that supposed to motivate you? And what message does that send to our enemies? Does that not give them aid and comfort?

Of course.

I here you...but I think that there is a large number of our troops that do not believe in why we are there already. It would be hypocritical of Obama to say that he is in favor of the war and belives in the mission. It would be worse if he lied to the troops. As far as our enemies; we have made more of them over the past 4 years... I'm getting a little off the original topic, which was about the comments made.
The bottom line is Obama and millions of others feel that it is senseless for so many mothers and fathers to lose there young children; or young children to lose their parents in a war without real purpose. Maybe that is the parent in me trying to imagine life without my daughter and this war being the cause.

The bottom line is Obama and millions of others feel that it is senseless for so many mothers and fathers to lose there young children; or young children to lose their parents in a war without real purpose.
And there lies the problem. There IS a real purpose. There are several REAL purposes. Purposes that had been embraced and supported by both political parties for many years.

Maybe that is the parent in me trying to imagine life without my daughter and this war being the cause.

If we withdraw immediately, then that loss of life would have been absolutely worthless. Worse yet, a rapid withdraw would actually be destructive to our security.

I here you...but I think that there is a large number of our troops that do not believe in why we are there already. It would be hypocritical of Obama to say that he is in favor of the war and belives in the mission. It would be worse if he lied to the troops. As far as our enemies; we have made more of them over the past 4 years... I'm getting a little off the original topic, which was about the comments made.
The bottom line is Obama and millions of others feel that it is senseless for so many mothers and fathers to lose there young children; or young children to lose their parents in a war without real purpose. Maybe that is the parent in me trying to imagine life without my daughter and this war being the cause.

Yeah, I'm sure the widows, widowers, and fatherless left from 9/11 would not all see it that way. I'm sure they could not have imagined their lives without each other before 9/11. I guess they should go thank Bill Clinton for not starting a war, right?

You seem to forget that we were attacked on 9/11, and this war is the result. We were attacked. Not the other way around. So WE have to defend ourselves. That means taking casualties on the battlefield by VOLUNTEERS who are really HEROES, so we don't have to take any more CIVILIAN casualties here at home. And for Obama to say it's not worth it is to SPIT IN THEIR FACES. Period.

You seem to forget that we were attacked on 9/11, and this war is the result. We were attacked. Not the other way around. So WE have to defend ourselves. That means taking casualties on the battlefield by VOLUNTEERS who are really HEROES, so we don't have to take any more CIVILIAN casualties here at home.


Iraq was NOT a result of 9/11. That was NOT the reason your president said you were going to Iraq. Even your 9/11 panel said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11....

Holy crap...is that Strapp as in Steve Strapp????

Iraq was NOT a result of 9/11. That was NOT the reason your president said you were going to Iraq. Even your 9/11 panel said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11....

Well, not being from here, I'll excuse you for not being up on the times. Everybody knows we are fighting Al Qaeda in the WOT, and everybody (except you) knows that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. Everybody now knows that Iran is sponsoring the fighting in Iraq, and that Iran is one of the most prolific sponsors of terrorism worldwide. We went into Iraq because Saddam threatened us and his neighbors with WMDs and violated seventeen UN resolutions. It just so happens that Iraq HAS BECOME a major front of the war on terror.

Yes...but there was little, if any Al-Queda presence in Iraq BEFORE you guys went there. (Your own 9/11 panel agrees with this). And Bush even told the nation you were going to Iraq for WMD. And if you were up to speed, you'd know that OBL version of Islam was different than Saddam's, and OBL was very critical of Saddam about this, often slagging him and calling him names. Is Al-Queda there now? Absolutely. Are Iranians there now? Absolutely. But neither had a strong presence in Iraq prior to you guys going there. All the Islamic fundamentalist needed was an excuse to go to Iraq to fight for their "brothers", and the US gave them that excuse...

Yes...but there was little, if any Al-Queda presence in Iraq BEFORE you guys went there. (Your own 9/11 panel agrees with this). And Bush even told the nation you were going to Iraq for WMD. And if you were up to speed, you'd know that OBL version of Islam was different than Saddam's, and OBL was very critical of Saddam about this, often slagging him and calling him names. Is Al-Queda there now? Absolutely. Are Iranians there now? Absolutely. But neither had a strong presence in Iraq prior to you guys going there. All the Islamic fundamentalist needed was an excuse to go to Iraq to fight for their "brothers", and the US gave them that excuse...

Excuse me, Mr. Canadian, but you need to stop bashing my country. It is not our fault that we were attacked on 9/11, nor is it our fault that Islam hates us. But it is to our credit and Bush's credit that we haven't been attacked since. We never gave anybody any excuse to attack us, but we will finish this war.

You have absolutely no idea how strong a presence Al Qaeda had in Iraq before the war. You can speculate all you want. But the simple fact is that Al Qaeda recognizes a democratic Iraq as a threat to their way of life and a Western stronghold in their territory, and they know that if we win in Iraq, they lose. If anybody's bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq, it's Al Qaeda. If anybody's losing the war, it's Al Qaeda. Sorry you don't see it due to our anti-American media. But if you did some rudimentary (learned that word from TommyB) searching on the internet you would find true results. And anyway, I'll take a war fought on our terms and on their turf over the opposite anyday. And so would you.

I'm going by what your official 9/11 report said. Were they lying? It's a known fact that Saddam and Al-Queda were at odds. There is little question if Al-Queda had a "strong" presence in Iraq, Saddam would have crushed them like he did any other group with a strong presence that he was at odds with. Was there Al-Queda members in Iraq? Sure....but there are members in nearly every country. But to say there was a strong presence is REALLY stretching the truth. Even your president's selling feature of this war was WMD and not Al-Queda. Paul Wolfowitz even stated that the evidence linking Al-Queda to Iraq was "murky". Go read the President's State of the Union address on Jan.28, 2003...his last before the invasion of Iraq and the beginning of the war. He says Al-Queda ONCE when referring to Iraq. That's it. So get off of it...Al-Queda was NOT the reason you guys went to Iraq and you know it. It was WMD, WMD, WMD..over and over and over. That's what your Pres. said. Go read it.

The war in Iraq, to them, became a war with Islam. That was the excuse they needed to really have a presence in Iraq to fight beside their islamic "brothers". That and no more Saddam. It's the same with Iranians. Were there Iranians militants in Iraq before the war? Sure...but not even remotely close to what they have there now. . But since the war, they have been coming over for the same reasons as Al-Queda. Using their religion as a way to legitimize what they are doing. And honestly...if the US was REALLY interested in going after Al-Queda, there are a half dozen other countries that had/have an Al-Queda base many, many, many times greater than Al-Queda had pre-war in Iraq.

There is no question there are more Al-Queda in Iraq now than there was before the war.

There were definitely terrorists in Iraq before the invasion.
For instance, Abdul Rahmin Yasin, the man who mixed the chemicals used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was hiding out in Iraq, on the Iraqi government's payroll and receiving a monthly salary. IIS documents back this up.
Also, Zarqawi was injured fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan and was being treated in a hospital in Baghdad.

Yep...there are Al-Queda in every country. But to say there was a strong presence prior to the war is B.S.

Yep...there are Al-Queda in every country. But to say there was a strong presence prior to the war is B.S.
That was just two examples. There is evidence of al Qaeda members meeting with Iraqi officials.

That was just two examples. There is evidence of al Qaeda members meeting with Iraqi officials.

Yes..you are correct. But they flew in from Afghanistan or Sudan or some other places. These weren't local Al-Queda operatives living in Iraq. Again..there was no "strong" presence in Iraq.


There is also evidence (and photos) of US officials meeting with Taliban terrorists in the US. Does that mean there was a "strong" Taliban presence in the US and that the US was a haven for terrorists? Add to that fact the US gave the Taliban millions of dollars. On the surface, if you were so inclined, you could say by these actions the US is friendly to terrorist groups like the Taliban. (you'd have to be on many illegal drugs to think this though!) Afterall..we all know what would be said if Saddam was giving millions to the Taliban and hosting lavish parties for them as was done for the Taliban visit to Texas.

I don't disagree that Al Queda had been in Iraq. But I disagree that they had a strong or large co-ordinated group there that precipitated the Iraq war.

Yes..you are correct. But they flew in from Afghanistan or Sudan or some other places. These weren't local Al-Queda operatives living in Iraq. Again..there was no "strong" presence in Iraq.


There is also evidence (and photos) of US officials meeting with Taliban terrorists in the US. Does that mean there was a "strong" Taliban presence in the US and that the US was a haven for terrorists? Add to that fact the US gave the Taliban millions of dollars. On the surface, if you were so inclined, you could say by these actions the US is friendly to terrorist groups like the Taliban. (you'd have to be on many illegal drugs to think this though!) Afterall..we all know what would be said if Saddam was giving millions to the Taliban and hosting lavish parties for them as was done for the Taliban visit to Texas.

I don't disagree that Al Queda had been in Iraq. But I disagree that they had a strong or large co-ordinated group there that precipitated the Iraq war.

I'll bet you don't even understand the Bush quote you are using as your sig. If you did, you wouldn't use it. He's referring to catapulting the propaganda put forth by the Democrat Party and the media by repeating the truth over and over again, because it doesn't take long for a false story to get legs when it's supported by the media.

Funny how you take things out of context. Go find another Bush quote that actually represents what you believe, that Bush sucks. Or leave it as it is and I will continue to laugh at you.

You quote the man, then don't refer at all to the quote. Nor did you rebutte anything about the US allowing Taliban terrorists to stay at the Bush ranch in Crawford, TX, or about the terrorist bases in countries other than Iraq. If we truly want to take this war to our enemies we need to get our army on the move. To sit in one country and take casualty after casualty for the better part of the decade is not the way to win a war. When the Allies invaded Normandy in 1944 did they sit around and wait for the Nazis to send reinforcements to France. NO! They sent out the Air Corps to cut off the transportation of their troops to the battlefield. They fought tenaciously to breakout of the hedgerows. In Viet Nam did our country go into Cambodia and Laos to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail? Yes, but to a limited extent, and only after the public support for the war had wained. I believe that this war has passed the critical point of mobility and has become a static war, much like the Great War did in 1915. And what came of that war: Armistice (peace until the next war). And that peace only lasted 21 years. Really, only 13 years. From 1918 to when the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1931. The Germans were at it again before 25 years could pass ( Armistice Day = 11 November 1918. Invasion of Poland =1 September 1939). To win this war on terror we must actively seek and destroy ANY terrorist camp in ANY country, even our own, with fury that hath not been seen since the closing days of the Korean conflict.
You only spoke of the Bush quote in his signature, which is irrelevant.

I'll bet you don't even understand the Bush quote you are using as your sig. If you did, you wouldn't use it. He's referring to catapulting the propaganda put forth by the Democrat Party and the media by repeating the truth over and over again, because it doesn't take long for a false story to get legs when it's supported by the media.

Funny how you take things out of context. Go find another Bush quote that actually represents what you believe, that Bush sucks. Or leave it as it is and I will continue to laugh at you.

Fossten,

I think you might be mistaken. He is not referring to the Democratic Party. Heck..he didn't say anything negative about the democratic party or ANY of his detractors when he said that. He even made a joke about it and the people laughed. He was talking about how his new social security might work, and he repeated some things several times prior. Here's the actual paragraph.

"Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Boy...you sure took quite the leap to determine what he said was referring to the Democrats....or anybody else for that matter. Here...read the whole thing and you'll see nothing of what you mentioned. Who's taking what out of context exactly??

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html


Oh...and since when do we have to "set-up" our signatures to make sure everyone knows what context they are in? I mean...look at YOUR signature. I suppose you could say it was taken out of context because what she said was:

"I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence!"

Though to be fair, she has used that speech a few different times, so who knows which iteration of it you are using. But I think I'm annoyed that she used the word "alternative" twice in the same sentence. :)

So to help you feel warm and fuzzy, I've added a little bit to my sig. I mean it doesn't bother me that you took her comment out of context.....But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, man!

Fossten,

I think you might be mistaken. He is not referring to the Democratic Party. Heck..he didn't say anything negative about the democratic party or ANY of his detractors when he said that. He even made a joke about it and the people laughed. He was talking about how his new social security might work, and he repeated some things several times prior. Here's the actual paragraph.

"Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Boy...you sure took quite the leap to determine what he said was referring to the Democrats....or anybody else for that matter. Here...read the whole thing and you'll see nothing of what you mentioned. Who's taking what out of context exactly??

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html


Oh...and since when do we have to "set-up" our signatures to make sure everyone knows what context they are in? I mean...look at YOUR signature. I suppose you could say it was taken out of context because what she said was:

"I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence!"

Though to be fair, she has used that speech a few different times, so who knows which iteration of it you are using. But I think I'm annoyed that she used the word "alternative" twice in the same sentence. :)

So to help you feel warm and fuzzy, I've added a little bit to my sig. I mean it doesn't bother me that you took her comment out of context.....But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, man!

I guess living in a socialist society, you aren't disturbed by Hillary's words about wanting to "take those profits," considering she didn't earn those profits. That's understandable. Of course, it wouldn't take more than one such incident for the oil companies to stop producing. But I guess the meaning of such a Stalinist, Chavez-ian phrase is lost on you.